- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:54:10 -0400
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- CC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 08/22/2012 12:23 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 8/22/2012 6:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 08/02/2012 04:06 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote: >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> In regards to the text in question I am prepared to withdraw my change >>> proposal in favour of Teds. >> >> This leaves only one active Change Proposal on this issue: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-201&oldid=13386 >> >> At the current time, the chairs are issuing a call for consensus on >> this proposal. If anybody would like to raise an objection during >> this time, we will require them to accompany their objection with a >> concrete and complete change proposal. >> >> If no objections are raised to this call by August 30th, 2012, we will >> direct the editors to make the proposed change, and will only consider >> subsequently reopening this issue based on new information and a >> complete change proposal based on the spec's contents as it exists >> after this change is applied. > > The "Eoconnor" CP is a vast departure from the spec as it existed prior > and as it is implemented. > I don't believe one week is enough time to complete and submit a > concrete counter-proposal. Some relevant context: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0080.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0267.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0068.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0062.html The chairs are not likely to grant an unbounded request for additional time. > Further, the Canvas group just gained new editors; it has and will take > them time to catch up on the discussion. > > We seem to have general consensus on many of the features: supporting > SVG path d; dashed lines, reporting the offset of text baseline > and supporting the binding of a hit region to a an element within the > sub-tree. > > We do not have consensus about the new "Path" object, unbacked hit > regions nor the footprint of the text baseline reporting methods. > I intend a simple, incremental change to the existing Canvas > specification that more closely matches the design of Canvas > implementations and consumers. > > -Charles - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 16:54:48 UTC